I think the point here is that those are commonly available modules in eurorack that most folks probably already have. It probably won't change the "sound" much since all the functionality can be easily replicated. I do think B should make the module to satisfy folks like you. Hell, if they wanted to get creative (they don't) they could just make a state variable filter including those circuits that does that.KSS wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 1:22 pmGo ahead and patch up your solution, providing the same flexibility and speed as this module. Once you do that, it would be a nice comparison to share so others can see how they feel about one versus the other solution. It's all up to personal preference after all isn't it?
There are many modules which may not be "required", but which provide means to easily and accurately accomplish tasks which could be accomplished without them.
Who needs a keyboard if you've got a ribbon controller?
Probably helps in that case to be sduck.
Cwejman, Livewire, TipTop Audio, Doepfer etc... Get your euro on!
- Super Deluxe Wiggler
- Posts: 1319
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 4:13 pm
- Location: Santa Cruz, California
New video for my track
Opening The Portal
Opening The Portal
That's a valid point. But different from the one I'm making here -and in many other posts in the forum- which is that the user interface matters. Had thought the ribbon vs KBD analogy would make that clear. Synth joy and success is not only about being *able* to do something. it's also about how readily or easily or repeatably that thing is done. And how the controls react as you do so.
This again assumes the 'sound' is only a function of available electronic resources. More often than not, that's not the case.It probably won't change the "sound" much since all the functionality can be easily replicated.
We patch certain ways and turn certain knobs and switch certain switches because they're where they are in the user interface, and because they work the way they do. Here's an example: Nearly every VCF has a resonance knob. But the result of that knob being turned -even when the circuit behind the panel is the same- may not be at all the same. Some kick into self-osc sooner, some later. The curve or linearity of their response changes how we experience the sound, and how we interact to develop it. Some smoothly 'slide' naturally from no resonance all the way to self osc. Others have dead spots and breaks or jumps along the way.
A second example that everybody 'feels' and many don't seem to understand is the effect of turning an A,D,R knob on an envelope generator. Moog ordered special pot tapers for the 911's, and when you use a vintage moog modular you very quickly understand why. Especially if you compare it to another MU clone 911. People go crazy talking about "snappy" envelopes thinkng it's only about speed of attack. Leaving out shape of response of the knob or slider.
And in the case of the 904C module a similar situation is presented. You might be able to patch in your mixer-attenuator and switch module(s) to duplicate its labeled function. But you'll probably not match its sonic feel and effect. FWIW, Behringer probably won't get this right even if they do clone it, but that's not the point. The point is that some of the mojo or magic of many classic synths has less to do with their circuits, components and historical use than it does to the details of their operator interface. And that interface is both the physical layout anddetails like range and taper of controls
SH101 gets much of its popularity because the ranges and action of its sliders make sense. By this I mean the sweet spots are where they 'should' be, and the range also. Same can be said for the 2600. We relate to these kinds of differences by liking or disliking the use of a given synth. it's eminently personal. But what we're often relating to is not the available circuit; but rather how it is 'presented' to us. How its controls work with the circuit on a very detailed level.
I don't need them to do it for me. I've had plenty of time on the OG synths. I want them to do it for people like 'you' who may not have ever experienced one very real reason these classics are -in some or many cases- revered.I do think B should make the module to satisfy folks like you.
That's why I'm truly hoping galanter2 takes up the request to actually flesh out the actual patch he would use to duplicate the 904C. One, because it's easy to say, well just patch this and that and it'll be the same than it is to actually see how it looks and works compared to the module being replicated for function. Two, because sharing that visually lets others see the reality, instead of only the suggestion.
Look at the 904C circuit in the moog modular service manual. it's not quite so simple as it seems from the panel. That three position switch has 9 poles on five decks. During a performance on a 55, you can flip that switch and adjust a couple knobs and have a massive change in the sound. I'd like to see how that plays out in the 'duplicated' non-904C version.
This is exactly what finally brought me to eurorack; the 'promise' of a well thought out, enduring UI for a classic instrument - assuming they implement enough of it. I'm not concerned at all with authentic sound as long as I can make music with it (as a core set of modules), it's a synthesizer, I expect to work at it until I get what I want. It's a tool for creation. So create.KSS wrote: ↑I don't need them to do it for me. I've had plenty of time on the OG synths. I want them to do it for people like 'you' who may not have ever experienced one very real reason these classics are -in some or many cases- revered.
Thank you @KSS and @Bob Borries for articulating it so well.
According to Thomann.de, first modules (Moog and Roland) should be available in 7-8 weeks. These are only a limited set of all modules and seem to be mostly (not all) "utilitarian" in nature.
Most modules are pretty wide, hence the 140 HP Behringer Go case...